1976 (8) TMI 148 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellant was entitled to a personal hearing by the Deputy Commissioner in a revision proceeding under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
- Whether the Deputy Commissioner's failure to provide a personal hearing to the appellant rendered the order invalid.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Personal Hearing in Revision Proceeding:
The appellant contended that under section 20 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner was obligated to grant a personal hearing during the revision process, being quasi-judicial in nature. The court analyzed the provisions of section 20, emphasizing that the Deputy Commissioner could call for records and pass orders for the legality of an assessment within a prescribed time frame. The court noted that while the section did not explicitly mandate a personal hearing, it did not preclude the possibility of one. The court cited Supreme Court precedents to establish that the necessity of a personal hearing depended on the circumstances of each case.

2. Deputy Commissioner's Obligation to Provide Personal Hearing:
The court examined the facts of the case, where the appellant had purchased goods from dealers in Vijayawada and Mangalagiri, asserting that the sales tax had already been paid by the first dealers. The Deputy Commissioner, however, did not address this contention in his order. The court held that in quasi-judicial proceedings like revisions under section 20, while a personal hearing was not an absolute right for the assessee, it was crucial based on the facts presented. The court highlighted the difference in language between various sections of the Act, indicating that in cases of revision, giving an opportunity to the assessee to show cause against enhancement was essential.

3. Invalidity of Order Due to Lack of Personal Hearing:
The court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner should have provided a personal hearing to the appellant before deciding on the revision. The failure to do so was considered a violation of natural justice principles. The court emphasized that the appellant's explanation regarding the second sale of goods should have been thoroughly examined through a personal hearing. The court set aside the earlier judgment and directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct a personal hearing if the revision proceedings continued.

4. Bar of Limitation in Revision Proceedings:
The Government Pleader raised concerns about the limitation period for the revision if a personal hearing was granted. However, the court held that it was not within their purview to decide on this issue, as it was not relevant to the present case. The court stated that any consequences related to the limitation would be the responsibility of the sales tax authorities.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgment and directing the Deputy Commissioner to provide a personal hearing to the appellant if the revision proceedings persisted. No costs were awarded in the matter.